redblueamerica.com

And Matt Yglesias makes sense here:

If the executive branch comes to a private company and asks it to do something illegal, the executive branch has powerful ways of making the company see things its way. Being on the good side of the incumbent administration is a good place to be.

But still, companies will think twice about cooperating with illegal requests if they're sure that doing so will come around and bite them in the ass in the long run. But if you create the situation the Bush administration is proposing -- where failure to comply with illegal requests has negative consequences, but agreeing to comply with illegal requests lets you off scot free -- then no company going forward is going to have any reason to refuse to comply with any sort of illegal requests.

I understand why Glenn Greenwald makes the case he does -- with regards to telecom immunity -- above. But I don't agree with it.

I do happen to think that the original program of warrantless wiretapping was illegal -- and that the Bush Administration was trying to stop terrorists, yes, but also trying to extend executive power just as far as they could push it.

And I think that if you're a big telecom company that's regulated by the federal government, you're going to be more inclined than not to cooperate with that government -- PARTICULARLY when that government tells you that your cooperation is needed to stop terrorists.

I'm not naive; those big telecom companies probably influence federal government as much as they're influenced by it. That's one reason they're big. But while they might bear some culpability, the largest burden should fall on the executive branch officials who initiated the program.

The only problem is: That's probably not going to happen. And for that, the blame falls upon Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike. As the president himself has suggested, it's up to the voters to force accountability from its leaders. Because, it seems, they certainly won't demand it of themselves.